tgibbs writes: Google's subsidiary Motorola Mobility is insisting that competitors should pay a royalty of 2.25% of device price for use of its standards-essential H.264 patents related to interlaced video. But Motorola's lawyers seem to be having some difficulty finding evidence to make the case that interlaced (as opposed to progressive) video is still commercially important for internet transmission of video. One of the 3 examples of interlaced video that Motorola offered the court to make this point in their suit against Microsoft was a pirated Katy Perry video